From: Stephen Sprunk on
Dave C. wrote:

BTW, your computer's clock appears to be way, way off; the date on your
article was 4 Nov 2009 10:42:07 +0800 (i.e. 4 Nov 2009 02:42:07 UTC),
but the server headers show it posted around 4 Nov 2009 14:35:43 UTC.
Are you sure you aren't actually in -0400?

> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:35:26 +0000 (UTC)
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)> wrote:
>> Which is hardly unique to road use. Government can take land for
>> practically any purpose it decides now, including giving it to other
>> people.
> That's only because the Supreme Court of the United States has
> misinterpreted the Constitution in a 5-4 ruling where only 7 of the
> voting members were present to hear arguments in the case.
> The ruling was based on precedents where other courts had also ruled
> incorrectly on the Constitutionality of eminent domain to take private
> land and give it to other private landowners for private purposes.

SCOTUS cannot be legally incorrect (within the US) because they alone
decide what is "correct" WRT the US Constitution.

However, many states have reacted to their decision by severely limiting
how local governments can use their eminent domain powers. If yours
isn't one of them, contact your state legislators.


Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <2adve591vdcglu72k7lfhrba6gbat7ej25(a)>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)> wrote:
>[Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth
>Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
>To what extent is automobile use a "free" good? According to Hart and
>Spivak, government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to
>between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent
>of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon.

It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.

>If this tax were to
>account for "soft" costs such as pollution cleanup and emergency
>medical treatment, it would be as high as $9.00 per gallon.

And even easier if you make up numbers which don't have enough
substance to be falsified.

The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Larry Sheldon on
Matthew Russotto wrote:

> It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.

87% of all statistics quoted here were made up on-the-fly.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <ccc30dc8-b0e0-4865-ae00-895e52d7a5c4(a)>,
larrysheldonisalyingfuckinghypocrite <larrysheldonisalyinghypocrite(a)> wrote:
>On Nov 3, 9:57=A0am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...(a)> wrote:
>> Last time on, Larry Sheldon <lfshel...(a)>
>> said:
>> >elmer wrote:
>> >> Scott in SoCal wrote:
>> >>> [Excerpt from "Suburban Nation" by Andres Duany and Elizabeth
>> >>> Plater-Zybeck, pp. 94-7.]
>> >>> But the real question is why so many drivers choose to sit for hours
>> >>> in bumper-to-bumper traffic without seeking alternatives. Is it a
>> >>> manifestation of some deep-seated self-loathing,
>> >Since we know at this point that we have a typical
>> >bigcityeastcoastcommunist rant, I stopped reading at this point.
>> Since you apparently prefer to wallow in ignorance rather than expose
>> yourself to new ideas, I stopped reading your posts at this point.
>nice try Scott
>you can see the ignoramuses you are dealing with
>what they don't realize is they are paying for all these subsidies for
>cars and roads, and esp trucks

These "subsidies" are mostly the product of the fevered anti-car
mind. Tolls and dedicated taxes pay for nearly all the cost of the
roads (the exceptions being mostly very local roads). Car owners pay
the cost of purchase and maintainence of the cars themselves. Parking
is paid for either by the driver, or by a (typically private)
individual or organization who sees a benefit in not charging drivers
to park on his property.

>but they expect transit to be clean, 100% efficient, WITHOUT subsidy

The _goal_ (rarely met) for transit is that the farebox pay for 50% of
its operating cost. That's 50% of the operating cost, and 0% of the
capital cost. Given that, for transit fans to complain that
automobiles are heavily subsidized is ludicrous.

As for trucks, assuming you mean cargo vehicles and not light trucks,
they claim they're subsidizing "four wheelers". Others claim
otherwise. In practice, it's not all that important; if they really
are paying less than their share of costs, and that is changed, the
cost will simply be passed on to those purchasing those goods... who
are mostly drivers.

Trying to focus on the various costs which can be claimed (fairly or
unfairly) as "subsidies" to drivers misses the big picture. Which is
that there are so many drivers that any such subsidies _must_ come
mostly _from_ drivers as well. So if you were to wave a magic wand
and all these "subsidies" would disappear, with the money going back
into the pocket of those providing them, and the costs charged
directly to drivers, _driving would not become unaffordable_.
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <hcppor$5jn$2(a)>,
Kenny McCormack <gazelle(a)> wrote:
>The real problem with car ownership is that most of the costs are sunk
>costs (aka, fixed costs) - that is, not "marginal". The marginal costs
>of me going on a trip are virtually zero, so there is no disincentive to
>my doing so.

This is true, but not at all a subsidy. Mostly what it does is make
transit use (even at heavily subsidized rates) uneconomical for a car

>That major costs (which are, as I say, not determined much or at all by
>how much I drive) are:
> 1) Purchasing/maintaining the vehicle
> 2) Taxes (as the original article made clear - a lot of tax dollars
> go to subsidizing private vehicle ownership and usage)

Said tax dollars being mostly taken from drivers in the first place.
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.